Democrat Controlled Senate Votes to Repeal ObamaCare Medical Device Tax.....

[The Man]

I support the medical device tax and think it should be raised. Hi tech is one of the most important causes for rising medical costs.

And if it results in a reduction of R&D, even better

No offense, but this post is simply idiotic.

 

[sangha]

No offense, but this post is simply idiotic.

I think the absence of any argument in your post is due to your not having any argument to make

 

[The Man]

I think the absence of any argument in your post is due to your not having any argument to make

I'm waiting for your argument to back up your post. You just post the most idiotic post in this entire thread, and you don't even give us a reason for your idiocy.

Have at it hoss, I'm all ears.

 

[sangha]

I'm waiting for your argument to back up your post. You just post the most idiotic post in this entire thread, and you don't even give us a reason for your idiocy.

Have at it hoss, I'm all ears.

I already posted my argument - medical technology is one of the largest drivers of rising medical costs

 

[The Man]

I already posted my argument - medical technology is one of the largest drivers of rising medical costs

And I already told you that that is idiotic. So please tell us how technology is one of the biggest drivers of rising medical costs.

 

[Muddy Creek]

Medical Device Tax Repeal on Hold - Bloomberg

Bipartisan support for repealing the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices doesn’t mean the tax will get repealed any time soon.

. . .

“It sets the stage for some negotiations on it in the future,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat and leading opponent of the tax whose state of Minnesota is home to device companies such as Medtronic Inc.

. . .

First, lawmakers disagree on how to offset the approximately $30 billion increase in the deficit that would come from repealing the tax. Second, the House of Representatives, where tax legislation must start, doesn’t plan to pass any tax bills before it considers its rewrite of the tax code.

Not so fast. See, it's the type of source you use that gets you informed.

 

[sangha]

And I already told you that that is idiotic. So please tell us how technology is one of the biggest drivers of rising medical costs.

I tis not idiotic...It is fact

6 reasons health costs keep going up - Jul. 12, 2012

8 reasons why healthcare costs are rising

These are the main drivers of healthcare costs:

1. Patients with insurance who consider medical care a “freebie” with no cost consequences.

2. Physicians who neither practice evidence-based medicine nor include costs in their decisions.

3. The absence of realistic cost transparency.

4. Decisions driven by the pervasive mystique of “defensive medicine,” which now dictates hugely expensive (and lucrative) “defensive practice standards.”

5. Hospitals that want to fill beds, especially ICU beds, and aggressively market the newest and most expensive technology, beautifully performing tests, and treatments that patients often do not need.

U.S. Health Care Costs: Issue Modules, Background Brief - KaiserEDU.org, Health Policy Education from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation is driving health care spending?

While there is broad agreement that the rise in costs must be controlled, there is disagreement over the driving factors. Some of the major factors that have been discussed in cost growth are:
•Technology and prescription drugs– For several years, spending on prescription drugs and new medical technologies has been cited as a primary contributor to the increase in overall health spending; however, in recent years, the rate of spending on prescription drugs has decelerated.[1] Nonetheless, some analysts state that the availability of more expensive, state-of-the-art medical technologies and drugs fuels health care spending for development costs and because they generate demand for more intense, costly services even if they are not necessarily cost-effective. [6]

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7665/91-cbo-001.pdf

Many factors contribute to the high and rapidly rising costs of health
care per capita, including an aging population and more effective and costly medical technologies that are being developed on a continuing
basis.

 

[imagep]

Are you serious? It's hard enough as it is to get people WITH insurance to get routine check-ups.

What do you think would encourage people to get check-up's? If they had to pay or their insurance would pay?

Do the math.

Do we not change the oil in our car despite the fact that our auto insurance doesn't cover it?

Do the math.

 

[imagep]

Are you serious? It's hard enough as it is to get people WITH insurance to get routine check-ups.

What do you think would encourage people to get check-up's? If they had to pay or their insurance would pay?

Do the math.

It doesnt save us money when insurance coverage is expanded to include more and more services. The cost of those services increase in price and the individual ends up paying not only a higher price, but they also end up paying for additional administrative costs and additional profit to the insurance company.

My insurance does not pay for any health care that is not financially devistating, as a trade off my insurance is very inexpensive. It is actually financially easier for me to direct pay for most of my health care cost that it is for me to pay for an uber expensive insurance policy.

A little over a year ago my doc told me that she thought that I needed to see a specialist. The next day I made an appointment with a specialist, and he determined that I needed surgery. My surgery was not covered under my insurance policy, but I had it anyway. So how did I afford it? I just wrote a check for it out of my HSA, not a penny came from my monthly living budget. So where did the money in my HSA come from? It actually came from the profits of insurance companies - the ones that I didn't give them because I chose to save money by NOT having an expensive healthcare policy.

Insurance is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

[Diogenes]

The health insurer DOES care if you do routine maintenance on your health and they pay for it hoping to avoid paying mega bucks down the road for lack of routine maintenance. Again, dollar foolish, penny wise.

However, the factory warranty (insurance) on your new car REQUIRES you to do 5k/10k/15k routine maintenance check-ups or they will void your warranty.

So if the health insurer adopted the business model of the factory warranty, the premiums could be lowered substantially. Would you agree?

 

[Diogenes]

I support the medical device tax and think it should be raised. Hi tech is one of the most important causes for rising medical costs.

And if it results in a reduction of R&D, even better

If you wish to restrict your medical care to the level of the 16th century, you should be free to do so. But don't try to impose your thinking on the rest of us.

 

[imagep]

So if the health insurer adopted the business model of the factory warranty, the premiums could be lowered substantially. Would you agree?

I would actually think that is a good idea. It makes some sense. Except for one thing...

We are a caring and compassionate society. Even if someone failed to exercise, smoked, got fat, never took their blood pressure or diabetes meds, we would still demand that they were able to receive medical care when they got seriously sick. No one want's to see people dying when we have the cure for their ailments, even if they brought the ailments on themselves. And of course even some people in great condition who have never smoked or done anything to harm their health get the same illness that fat lazy smoking drinking slobs get. There will never be any way to prove that someone who is diabetic became diabetic solely because of their own doing.

There is a difference between the cost of medical care, and the price of medical care. The price of a double bypass surgery may be hundreds of thousands of dollars, but the actual cost of it may only be 8 or 10 hours of high skilled medical care (a surgion and several nurses and specialists for maybe two hours). Although the price of medical care might be outragious, the cost of it isn't so staggering.

We also have to weigh the cost of not providing medical care. A friend of my had a heart attack and bypass surgery a few years ago. He is now back at work being productive. He is producing every single week more goods and services than the amount of goods and services that went into saving his life. Getting the health care that he needed is a net plus for our economy, no matter who paid for it.

 

[imagep]

So if the health insurer adopted the business model of the factory warranty, the premiums could be lowered substantially. Would you agree?

I would actually think that is a good idea. It makes some sense, giving a discount for exercise and maintaining a healthy weight should result in lower healthcare costs and insurance premiums, just like some auto insurance companies give a "good driver discount".

But, the "slippery slope" argument comes into play. Just how far do we go with this? If we start pricing health insurance according to all the risk factors, many people would never be able to afford insurance. I am not particularly fat, and I lead a very active lifestyle at work and exercise several times a week. Yet I am diabetic and have high blood pressure. My mother, who has never been overweight is also diabetic and has high blood pressure. I had high blood pressure when I was in college, and I was as skinny as I could be. Should I have to pay a higher premium just because my genetics cause me to be diabetic and have high blood pressure? Should insurance companies be allowed to charge higher premiums to my friend who is also active and not particularly overweight just because he previously had a heart surgery?

We are a caring and compassionate society. Even if someone failed to exercise, smoked, got fat, never took their blood pressure or diabetes meds, we would still demand that they were able to receive medical care when they got seriously sick. No one want's to see people dying when we have the cure for their ailments, even if they brought the ailments on themselves. And of course even some people in great condition who have never smoked or done anything to harm their health get the same illness that fat lazy smoking drinking slobs get. There will never be any way to prove that someone who is diabetic became diabetic solely because of their own doing.

There is a difference between the cost of medical care, and the price of medical care. The price of a double bypass surgery may be hundreds of thousands of dollars, but the actual cost of it may only be 8 or 10 hours of high skilled medical care (a surgion and several nurses and specialists for maybe two hours). Although the price of medical care might be outragious, the cost of it isn't so staggering.

We also have to weigh the cost of not providing medical care. A friend of my had a heart attack and bypass surgery a few years ago. He is now back at work being productive. He is producing every single week more goods and services than the amount of goods and services that went into saving his life. Getting the health care that he needed is a net plus for our economy, no matter who paid for it.

I am all for the free market, I believe that generally the free market provides the best results in the distribution of goods and services. But our current health care system has removed health care from the free market mechanisms that produce the best results. Our current system of private insurance doesn't improve things, it makes things worse.

Insurance works best when it is purchased in large groups, the larger the group the more cost effective it is. Insurance is socialistic in nature, and it removes health care from the free market. There has to be some reasonable trade offs where we can have the best of both worlds (socialism and free market).

This is why I believe that we should have socialized major medical health insurance. Insurance would work best if it covered every single person equally, but insurance should not be looked upon as a way to avoid healthcare costs. Since we provide major medical care to almost every american through some sort of mechanism (private insurance, self pay, government insurance, or charity), providing everyone with an equal policy actually would cost our society no more than our mixed up convoluted system that we current have.

The purpose of insurance isn't to cover every single minor expected expense. The purpose of insurance is to cover expenses that would be financially catistrophic without insurance. True insurance is very inexpensive. Most people can purchase life insurance for just a few bucks a month, home owners insurance for maybe $100 a month (tops), auto insurance for less than $200 a month. The only reason that most health insurance policies cost upwards of a thousand dollars a month is because they cover expenses which are not catistrophic. And when people do purchase insurance that only covers catistrophic care, that medical insurance becomes very inexpensive, just like other forms of insurance.

For less than our government already pays for public healthcare, it could purchase from private insurance companies a high deductable major medical policy for every single individual, and still have enough money left over to rebate back thousands of dollars per citizen.

 

[Captain America]

So if the health insurer adopted the business model of the factory warranty, the premiums could be lowered substantially. Would you agree?

I think that would be a good idea. But, in reality, I don't think there will ever be a rule or law deemed legitimate that forces the populous to have regular physical check-ups. Heck, there are some segments of American society that deem professional health care to be the work of the devil.

I think American society would have no problem watching someone's car go to the junkyard because the owner did not maintain it properly. In fact, some might find it humorous.

But, society kind of looks at humans differently. Especially little children. I think that's one thing that makes America exceptional. We don't just stand by and let someone die or suffer simply because they were not smart enough or financially able to go to the doctor.

Are there any among us that would want to turn away poor children or the sickly? Is it the Christian fiber woven into American culture that makes us desire to be charitable and care for the downtrodden?

 

[sangha]

If you wish to restrict your medical care to the level of the 16th century, you should be free to do so. But don't try to impose your thinking on the rest of us.

Because the tax on medical devices means that no doctor will use any device invented after 1599 :screwy

 

[Diogenes]

My beef with socialized medicine is the inefficiency and the enormous cost of the accompanying bureaucracy, especially when you get into a micro-managed system that covers even something as inexpensive as birth control. However, there may be a place for socialized medicine at some level. There was a time when health insurance policies had upper limits, like the life and homeowner policies you mentioned; those have since been outlawed and there is no longer an upper limit to the exposure of the insurance company, which puts the company in a much more precarious position.

Suppose we did a few things to tweak the present system:

(1) Allow health insurance policies to be purchased across state lines.
(2) Reform the tort system so malpractice claims are handled like workers compensation, thus eliminating the jackpot justice system.
(3) Allow the insurance companies to cap their lifetime liability for a policy at, say, a million dollars (or $500k; open to negotiation) and socialize the medical expenses above that limit.
(4) Allow individuals to pay their own premiums with tax deductible dollars, and remove the employer deduction (which was initiated in the early forties as a dodge around wartime wage/price controls).

I suspect that if we made those changes possible you could (a) join an HMO for the routine stuff and (b) buy a major medical policy (like you apparently have) in case of catastrophic illness or injury, and (c) pay off your payroll tax share of the socialized stuff, all for a smaller total than you will pay under ObamaCare.

Do you think an approach like this (open to modification) could be negotiated as an alternative to the total government control the liberals seem to want?

 

[Diogenes]

Because the tax on medical devices means that no doctor will use any device invented after 1599 :screwy

No. It means that you are free to ignore the benefits of R&D for yourself, but don't try to force your choices on the rest of us.

 

[sangha]

My beef with socialized medicine is the inefficiency and the enormous cost of the accompanying bureaucracy, especially when you get into a micro-managed system that covers even something as inexpensive as birth control.

Yes, "socialized" medicine is expensive. The only form of health care that is more expensive than socialized medicine is non-socialized medicine.

No. It means that you are free to ignore the benefits of R&D for yourself, but don't try to force your choices on the rest of us.

The "benefits" of all that R&D are

1) Extending the suffering of people who are dying *and*
2) Bankrupting the nation

 

[Diogenes]

But, society kind of looks at humans differently. Especially little children. I think that's one thing that makes America exceptional. We don't just stand by and let someone die or suffer simply because they were not smart enough or financially able to go to the doctor.

Are there any among us that would want to turn away poor children or the sickly? Is it the Christian fiber woven into American culture that makes us desire to be charitable and care for the downtrodden?

That's a valid point, but I would suggest that charitable behavior (Christian or otherwise) is not something that can be subcontracted to the government. Many places have missions, food banks, shelters, etc. to help those truly in need, and - unlike government - they are staffed with people who truly care.

 

[Diogenes]

Yes, "socialized" medicine is expensive. The only form of health care that is more expensive than socialized medicine is non-socialized medicine.

The "benefits" of all that R&D are

1) Extending the suffering of people who are dying *and*
2) Bankrupting the nation

Feel free to go back to using leeches if you wish, but be advised that Obama wants to tax them also.

 

[sangha]

Feel free to go back to using leeches if you wish, but be advised that Obama wants to tax them also.

Because a 2.3% tax means that doctors can't use technology invented after 1599 :screwy

 

[Diogenes]

Because a 2.3% tax means that doctors can't use technology invented after 1599 :screwy

Try reading for comprehension. Bye bye.

 

[sangha]

Try reading for comprehension. Bye bye.

Try making an argument

 

[MMC]

For all those that lean to the Right and are against Obamacare. This is where it begins. The Senate has passed a repeal to this Tax. I would recommend if you really are about knocking down Obamcare. Then you should contact All members of the weighs and means Committee. Mitch McConnell has sent word to the House, pass the repeal and send it back to the Senate ASAP.

Here Obama had Dick Durbin running around with himself and talking about how Research and Development would be affected by sequester cuts and they gave us their false sobbing story. The real truth is this Tax is what affect Medical Devices Research and Development. There are about 8000 companies Nation wide and they are losing jobs over this tax.

I was wrong in thinking that these guys would pass the costs off to the consumers. But again the real deal is. They are not like any other in the medical field. As they do not raise costs every year. Like all others in the Healthcare field do. The only time they raise cost is when new innovations come out. Plus thru Patents there is a lot of court battles.

Obama's promise to them was that they would have more patients. They would see their profits go up. But this was a lie from the get go. As Team Obama citied like 30 Million people available for use of Medical devices. Again which was not true as the Demographic was for those in their 30s and younger. Which we know most in that age group do not need hip replacements, Pacemakers, and or other devices that basically is associated with Seniors.

Right now these Democrats have voted in favor of repealing Obama's Tax. In essence they are making a gesture as to repeal this part of Obamacare.. They now are going home for Easter. The House needs to Repeal this quickly and get back to the Senate. As it would be quite difficult for Demos to come out and say they were for repeal and now they are not. Especially with all associated to this issue.

We are losing jobs in this area where we lead the tech. But these companies are now being Courted by, Most recently the PM of Ireland. Talking to them about moving their companies over seas. Obama is killing their Industry and the Jobs. He knows this was done and is only resulting in a symbolic gesture. But this so significant. That if we repeal this part of Obamacare we can then start dismantling all of it. The Demos say they did this as a budgetary measure. Which is a double stick on them should the MSM come calling. Time to get on these guys and move this Repeal along. We have Obama Right where we want him.

This is a loss to Obama and we can turn it into a major defeat that will have his azz reeling backwards and him knowing Obamacare can be taken apart.

 

[MMC]

Challenge to the House GOP: Kill the Medical Device Tax, Now!

Of all the many awful features of the Affordable Care Act --"Obamacare"-- the medical device tax ("MDT") is the most obviously ruinous of a particular sector of the economy.

More than 8,000 firms in the United States are at work on such devices, from artificial hearts to sight-saving eye technologies to low tech bandages and surgical screws. More than a half million people work directly in this sector, in great jobs that value engineering and other high-skills sets and which produce annually thousands and thousands of patents that lead to worldwide innovation in health care and in cost savings in the prevention and treatment of disease.

The average time it takes for an idea to become a licensed-to-sell device in the U.S. is 12.4 years. That average path to market requires an investment of about $100 million. The inventors and investors hope that when the revenues arrive they can, under the protection of patent, make back that revenue and more so that profit can be made and new innovation begun.

The MDT slapped a 2.3% excise tax on this industry's revenues -- not profits -- a tax that kicked in this year, a tax that targets research and development dollars with particular zeal. Many of the devices are price controlled and cannot pass on the cost to the customer while others simply exist in an environment where price increases are not an accepted practice. The prices of medical devices tend to decline year-to-year, not to increase. Only innovations really allow for price increases.

(Nearly all of the budget for start-ups which relay on venture capital of one sort or another for their funding can be termed R&D.) Since about half of the R&D for established companies must go simply to maintenance of the existing product line, the dollars available to launching new products is between 2.5% and 5% of a company’s revenues.....snip~

Challenge to the House GOP: Kill the Medical Device Tax, Now - Hugh Hewitt - Page 1

Now is the time to strike. Obama is losing on Gun Control and with his own. Now he can lose here with his own. Then just like the game of Jenga. We take Obamacare apart piece by piece. Like Rubio stated over the weekend on FNC.....just wait until next year when all have to start paying this penalty. People will be screaming for Obamacare to be repealed. Hewitt has called on each and every Weighs and means Committee member already. Had several of the Republicans on to ask them directly. They say it will be one of the first orders of business. Due to this sector and the fact that most jobs in this field will be cut within 6 months.